October 17, 2012

Threats of US Election Riots Ignored by Mainstream Media

Though compared to countries like Greece, Spain and ones in the Middle East, the US has been weathering the economic downturn with relative peace, there are signs that things are beginning to become unhinged in the US. After the debate last night, multiple threats were noted on Twitter calling for the assassination of Mitt Romney. Had these been threats against Obama by conservatives, the MSM talking heads would have most likely made a big issue out of this. But, before we start throwing proverbial stones at the Obama supporters, consider the multiple calls for a revolution if Obama wins. No matter the outcome of the election, it seems a lot of people are on edge and ready to explode with anger. Though the Benghazi riots have been in the news quite a bit, the highest viewed riot story was related to the widespread London riots of July 2011, which included arson and looting of unprecedented levels. The reason for this web interest may be due to the fact that England has always held the honor of being considered the most civilized country in the world. If Londoners are videotaped burning up their own capital city, is there any doubt that the same kinds of riots could occur in the US?

According to documented activity on the Internet, a lot of people in the US are either planning a riot or a revolution shortly after the presidential elections. In August, four US soldiers in Georgia were accused of attempting to overthrow the government and assassinate president Obama. A search of the word "riot" in Google Trends shows that the word is spiking in both US and international categories on the Internet. It doesn't really seem to matter who will win the election. Many paleo-conservatives have threatened a revolution if Obama wins. And many have threatened riots if Romney wins.

With regard to globalism and tyranny, Michelle Bachman was noted for this statement: “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us ‘having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people – we the people – are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.” Also, Judge Tom Head, of Lubbock County, Texas, told CNN affiliate KJTV that if Obama is re-elected the nation will devolve into civil war. The Virginia Republican Committee echoed his ideas, vowing in their newsletter that a revolution would occur.

If Romney wins, mass riots have been threatened. As previously documented by Infowars, specific comments on Twitter and Facebook show an increasing trend of such threats. The Google Trends web clip image attached outlines these types of spikes in web searches on the subject. What is most unsettling about a lot of this rhetoric is that it implies the civility the US has been holding onto is running thread-bare, no matter who wins.

The two main US candidates basically agree on so many issues that underlying status-quo policies are guaranteed to continue. The Federal Reserve will not be audited, tyrannical Agenda 21 will continue, 9/11 will not be seriously investigated, a first strike on Iran will remain in the works, and so on and so forth. What these two candidates seem to be particularly terrified of are questions from the audience. Leaked documents outline how public debates are extremely well controlled:

"Everything from how to handle an unplanned remark from the audience to how each candidate will sit — precisely, to even the exact arrangement of their chairs and water glasses — has already been outlined in a document just unearthed by the press.

According to the 21-page agreement signed by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, no member of the audience will be allowed to ask follow-up questions to the candidates during Tuesday’s event. Microphones will be cut off right after questions are asked."

As usual, the mainstream media, wallowing in status-quo largess, is simply doing what it does best as of late, ignoring important news and aiding and abetting in the dumbing down of the public. Obama has no real hope to offer, and neither does Romney. It's time to pray and prepare. Time is of the essence with regard to preparing for what's around the corner. The government is not going to save you. If sports losses cause mass riots in the streets, what will happen in case of a massive financial collapse? If you have been following the militarization of the US and such laws as the NDAA, then you realize the US government is preparing for conflict and martial law. In the final analysis, this type of revolutionary activity may actually help those who wish to achieve world government, a New World Order as it is called, and the totalitarian control so many elitist globalists have dreamed of. David Wilkerson's prophecy of NYC on fire may yet come to pass. He had predicted, "There will be riots and fires in cities worldwide. There will be looting - including Times Square, New York City..."

I do not see any reason to fear mass riots in the US in the near future. The government is strong enough to stop any unrest even before it becomes massive.

Rick s article seems to repeat the same nonsense from before about a world-wide conspiracy and apocalyptic ravings. It does not matter that the "leaders" of the conspiracy are rivals, trying to achieve mutually incompatible goals and they have no reason to seek world dominance with all its headaches. Not to mention that no one objectively has sufficient resources to establish a global dictatorship.

It is just common sense. Though, we all know that common sense is not Rick s strong point 8)

Rick loves conspiracy theories (as evidenced by his 9/11 trutherism, his beliefs that technology like barcoedes are bringing the comping apocalypse, as well as his love of sites like infowars and naturalnews, both of which peddle in ridiculous conspiracy theories.

That Rick lacks the critical thinking skills to sift this dross speaks volumes about his mental state. That Rick, even when confronted with his lack of capability in this regard continues to trumpet his own near infallibility speaks more to his inflated ego and his belief in his own abilities which far outweighs those abilities.

The most funny thing would be that Rick does not even understand the claims from his sources.

Like in his article about Iran he predicted world war 3 would erupt because of the conflict. Rick just copy-pasted ridiculous claims from the infowar site and did not even bother to understand that they were talking about a nuclear war that "mentally insane globalist" are going to start just for fun. (Isn t it convinient? A mentally ill person does not nedd a reason to start crazy shit. The only problem would be to prove that those people are crazy)

Though it seems that even Rick with his selective perception has an idea how crazy and stupid something like that sounds and denied that the conflict with Iran would lead to a nuclear war.

The commenter Havok has been unable to challenge philosophical articles underscoring the truth of God's existence.

Your ignoring his challenges and claiming you're being "slandered" is not the same as his being unable to challenge you, Rick. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, singing "I can't hear you", and then complaining that he hasn't made any useful response do you because you didn't hear it. ;)

Rick, if you're unable to provide any substance then don't make claims.

All of the claims you make in your ridiculous "I'm not answering Havok because he's a big meanie" comments have been addressed, and were addressed when you first started ignoring me.The "unsubstantiated slander" was substantiated on the threads which were relevant.Replying with a childish "I'm ignoring you" comment is not actually ignoring me.And I am still waiting for those replies on your "How identity, logic and physics prove God's existence" thread. I've been waiting for those replies for quite some time. Prior to you deciding to ignore me.

Now, I know that you dislike having untrue things said about you, but your stance here is inconsistent. I have informed you of all of this before, yet you continue to claim things which are false. Since you are claiming things to be false which you have been informed are false, and have not actually addressed the fact that they are false, I conclude (once again) that you are lying.

Once again you are lying Rick. You've been caught out lying repeatedly on your own blog, and yet you still want to think of yourself as some sort of paragon of virtue, defending what is "Right" and "Good". You're a liar for Jesus.

How attachment affects our healthPsychologists have known for decades that close things to get your boyfriend are critical to ongoing operations.This group now makes up 80% of the population; not a socio-economic indicator of domestic abuse.